The “hot topic” on Tuesday was drones.
Image: AP
There certainly was no shortage of stories about the remote-controlled, unmanned and very well-armed flying machines that are capable of killing from thousands of miles away.
- REVEALED: HOLDER SAYS PRESIDENT COULD AUTHORIZE MILITARY DRONE STRIKES INSIDE U.S. IN AN EMERGENCY
- SENATOR: WHITE HOUSE IS PROVIDING US MEMOS TO JUSTIFY DRONE USE
- WHAT DO YOU GET WHEN YOU COMBINE DRONES WITH GUN CONTROL?
With Tuesday’s release of DOJ memos that some believe would allow domestic use of drones to strike out against potential terror threats, we wanted to enlist your opinions on the subject.
TheBlaze Urtak Poll also allows you to suggest a question on this topic.
On Thursday we will publish a detailed analysis of the poll results.
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (156)
kat747
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:52pmThese are the words that I just read on Yahoo News….
“Pres. Obama has the LEGAL AUTHORITY
to unleash deadly force – such as drone attacks -
AGAINST AMERICANS
on US SOIL
without first
putting them on trial.”
Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in a letter released today (3/5/2013).
This should make all the democratic, communistic, progressive, marxist, anti-Americans proud
to have this person in office.
Oh, Pres. Obama has no “intention” of using them…….right !
Report this comment
zapparules
Mar. 5, 2013 at 10:20pmSo is it to be the Republican platform that they will reverse this policy – never use drones / drone attacks on any American on U.S. soil – even if that / those Americans are deemed an imminent threat?
(Would that not make Republicans soft/weak on protecting all (other) Americans?)
Report this comment
Stoic one
Mar. 5, 2013 at 10:29pmHere is the link to the Yahoo article:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/holder-yep-obama-could-kill-americans-u-soil-213059085–politics.html
Report this comment
Obama_In_PeePee_By_Zee_ArTeest_Beck
Mar. 5, 2013 at 10:54pm“TheBlaze Drone Poll – Where Do You Stand On The Subject Of Drones at Home and Abroad?”
You’re in worse trouble than you think! YOU ARE SLAVES IN PRISON and those drones for the PRISON GUARDS to stop your rioting when you find out that your ARE slaves:
Mark Levin 03/04/13
http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930
@50:30
PART 1
LEVIN: “Let us go to Ron, Pleasanton, California, the great KSFO, go!”
CALLER: “Mark, thanks for taking my call. I want to thank you for all you do for us as the country. It’s really awesome, a privilege, to talk to you today.”
LEVIN: “Thank you my fried. Appreciate that.”
CALLER: “And, and listen, I’ve been forced, because as I listen to you each day, you’re great at bringing history into the present, you’ve forced me to go back in history and do allot of research. And I came across a quote from a guy named Edward Mandel House to Woodrow Wilson right just before his became President. I don’t have time to read the quote but talks about how there would be a system put into place that would case people to sign over their biological property as a bill of lading against a lien that would be created, uh excuse me, the would be caused, by borrowing of money and that the biological bills of lading would be used collateral. It’s in the quote and …”
LEVIN: “But what debts, debts incurred by government?”
Report this comment
Obama_In_PeePee_By_Zee_ArTeest_Beck
Mar. 5, 2013 at 10:55pmPART 2
CALLER: “The biological property is actually, my research is, the birth certificate. My two kids, I’ve got two young kids, 4 and 2, and it says right on their birth certificate ‘Midwest Bank Note Company’. So I wanted to know what that was. Why are my kids birth certificates on bank notes. What I’ve uncovered is that our kids birth certificates are the collateral that’s used when the Federal Reserve loans the United States Treasury notes, that our bodies are used as the collateral.”
LEVIN: “Well, I’ve never heard this before. No offense. My, I have my birth certificate and it doesn’t come from a bank.”
CALLER: “You know, my mother-in-law passed away year before last 1950 and I was going at the funeral home and her birth certificate fell out of the baby book and it said right on it and embossed, it was a rather simple form but it was embossed, and it said ‘State Of Nebraska Corporate Seal’. So what I discovered, I’m from California, and ‘The State Of California’ is different from ‘California State’. ‘The State Of California’ is a private company that functions within ‘California State’.”
LEVIN: “Alright, my friend. Got it. Thank you very very much and I’m in a state of confusion really. I’m not doubting him, I’ve just never heard of this before. And I’ve done allot of reading about Woodrow Wilson. Let me tell you — one nasty S.O.B. A racist, a segregationist, a man who hated The Constitution …
Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Mar. 5, 2013 at 11:09pmThe old republican mantra comes back to bite you in the a$$….”If you arent doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear”
Report this comment
Tigress1
Mar. 5, 2013 at 11:11pmZapparules, please give an example of when anyone in the U.S.A. would be considered such an imminent threat to warrant a drone strike.
Report this comment
yougottabekidding
Mar. 5, 2013 at 11:22pmTigress1
If your a conservative and have a picture of a gun!
Report this comment
Chancellor
Mar. 6, 2013 at 1:06amDoes that work both ways??? Do we, The American citizens, that he works for have the Legal Authority to Kill them when they try to kill us?
According to the Constitution we should be doing it already!
Report this comment
Anadara
Mar. 6, 2013 at 9:49amIf this were to be come precedent the Dems (now marxists) must realize that this may be used by other administrations as well.
Report this comment
Daddy Hawg
Mar. 6, 2013 at 10:55amTigress1 read he white paper issued by the DHS right after Napolitano took office. Something about veterans being a good candidate for becoming terrorists.
Report this comment
ChildOfTheKing
Mar. 6, 2013 at 11:46amHey Liberals: here is YOUR LEADER, a Marxist, anti-American, anti-God, Socialist Muslim. YOU SHOULD BE VERY PROUD because HE IS YOUR PRESIDENT, not mine. Therefore, when YOU face God, if you believe in eternal life, then YOU will have to answer for YOUR decisions for following this TYRANT.
The Bible clearly ask that if the blind lead the blind, will they both fall into the ditch? YES, YOU WILL, IF YOU BLINDLY FOLLOW THIS EVIL PRESIDENT – OR – IF YOU SUPPORT HIS EVIL POLICIES. YOU WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR DECISION TO SUPPORT HIM. And just think about this, YOU ARE FORCING THE REST OF US to obey HIS laws, BY ALLOWING HIM TO CONTINUE HIS EVIL REIGN, which I will tell you right now THAT AS A DEVOUT FOLLOWER OF JESUS CHRIST, I WILL NOT FOLLOW THIS EVIL MAN, INCLUDING ANY OF HIS LAWS. The Bible clearly tells us that yes, we are to obey the law of the land, but it does not mean that we are to follow EVIL MEN AND EVIL LAWS. In other words, IF THE LAW SAYS THAT YOU MUST TAKE THE MARK OF THE BEAST, WILL YOU? (I WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE) Remember, if you do, you will be lost forever in eternity, WITHOUT GOD AND JESUS CHRIST. Just remember that.
AS FOR ME AND MY HOUSE, WE WILL SERVE THE LORD (and NOT man or this evil President). I WILL DIE FIRST AND WILL BE BETTER OFF FOR IT BECAUSE I WILL BE WITH JESUS FOREVER. I AM READY, ARE YOU? I feel sorry for you liberals. GOD HELP YOU.
Report this comment
ArmedPatriot
Mar. 6, 2013 at 1:13pmEvery Republican in Congress needs to sign a petition to Holder demanding he repudiate this policy completely and unambiguously. Obama is getting ready to wage a War on America or rather expand the war he’s already waging to despotic lethal dimensions. Frightening. And the Left that protested Bush are fully on board with this unheard of abrogation of our Constitutional rights and God-given freedoms.
Report this comment
LicketySplit
Mar. 6, 2013 at 1:25pmI for one am getting quite tired of Liberals in government telling us what we should allow while picking our pockets in the same sentence. Why arent these criminals being impeached?
Report this comment
DenverKitty
Mar. 6, 2013 at 1:59pmKat: That’s because the Butcher of Benghazi is AFRAID of a coup d’ etat.
Report this comment
1kingforall
Mar. 6, 2013 at 3:37pmHow very true are the time’s we live in ,fear not my brother’s and sister’s many will die for my name’s sake, the leader is either the ONE or the last of the stair’s that the ONE will stand upon!
GOD BLESS AMERICA
she is now just something from the past, it is dONE !!!!
Report this comment
Durvy
Mar. 6, 2013 at 4:12pmNo he does not. The person you are quoting is the same person held in contempt in congress due to unconstitutionally running guns to Mexico. He was rescued by POTUS rather than allow him to be tried and convicted.
Report this comment
DefyTYRANNY
Mar. 6, 2013 at 5:35pmTigress1 – When U.S. Citizens decide to rise up and cast off Tyranny once again.
The current administration and its shadow Puppeteers specifically plan to take actions that are so far against the very ideals which America has stood for that it fully expects many people to take arms against it.
They know this, and since they have been gutting our military in size systematically. Therefore the reason why they are shifting to arming civilian agencies “with funding and armament equal to the military”. The civilian government controls these agencies explicitly. They do not control the military completely, even though they have taken substantial steps to place puppets in General’s and other officer uniforms throughout.
This is also why they have insinuated so inconspicuously that Constitutional Patriots and Ex Military members are terrorists. You see this in network television shows constantly, not to mention internal memos and theoretical “exercises” within government and even military circles.
They plan to kill the s*** out of anybody who rises against them post haste. The drone program is easily used by anyone who can play an Xbox pretty much, and many of the DHS strike teams will follow whatever orders they are given and firmly believe that the law of the land is what they say it is. Many of them have no understanding or don’t care about our Constitution or how many people laid down their lives to avoid what our founders warned us of.
How far this country
Report this comment
TrueTexan327
Mar. 6, 2013 at 11:55pmGO Paul, Please get him more help. This is it. tick, tick, tick!
Report this comment
Quester55
Mar. 7, 2013 at 2:56amSo this Communist Dictator wants & is all ready using Drones to remove those that blow the whistle on his Illegal Acts, What’s new?
Obama seems to think that he’s, ” Untouchable,” in his personal Kingdom of Fools. He struts like a peacock around the nation, Spreading Lies & Rumors, like they where Blessings from a Pope & then Asking, NO, Demanding that WE the Citizens Remain Calm and allow him the ” Time “, to make his
plans work?!?
The French had a proper punishment, for Dictators like Obama, It’s called an, ” Guillotine “!!
Report this comment
nectoxicdragon
Mar. 9, 2013 at 2:34amThe president has NEVER had any authority to call for the death of any individual anywhere in the world. It is not allowed by our Constitution, and it is classified as an international crime, and a war crime by the Hague. Where did Holder get his degree, the same box of ******* jacks that Obama did?
Report this comment
nectoxicdragon
Mar. 9, 2013 at 2:40amOh please censoring C_R_A_C_K_E_R JACKS? The Blaze has become politically correct now??? talk about a C_R_O_C_K of B_S!
By the way under current FAA or should that be F_A_A regulations it is unlawful to fly umanned aircraft at altitudes above 400ft in US air space… so how are these drones doing it “legally”???
Report this comment
chips1
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:49pmI wonder how much the answers would show a different statistic if people could stop thinking about Obama being President. I don’t trust him with a lollypop. He is one unstable Witch Doctor.
Report this comment
Wolf
Mar. 6, 2013 at 7:19am‘…chips1 Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:49pm
I wonder how much the answers would show a different statistic if people could stop thinking about Obama being President…’
Would it be acceptable if a GOP president approved drones and removed your personal freedom to privacy, security in your home, papers, and daily tasks? Such as the Patriot Act- where was the hue and cry from the general public even when a few talk shows- Rush, for one- raved against it?
Evil is evil, regardless who is employing it. Odumbo just happens to be the vehicle in use at the moment.
Report this comment
ChildOfTheKing
Mar. 6, 2013 at 12:02pm@Wolf:
NO DRONES ARE ACCEPTABLE. ANY President or leader that condones or approves anything that is contrary to our U.S. Constitution should be hung by the neck until dead, in the public square.
NOT ALL OF US CITIZENS APPROVED OF THE PATRIOT ACT. I think it was and is an abomination to the Lord and to citizens of the USA. THE PATRIOT ACT WAS JUST PLAIN WRONG because it made us give up some of our liberties for security. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
Report this comment
smv803
Mar. 6, 2013 at 2:03pm@wolf…..if a Conservative Republican were doing the same as Obama, he too would be asked to resign! What does party affiliations matter? This man is an enemy of our Republic and he needs to go,, period!
Report this comment
Dougsopinion
Mar. 6, 2013 at 4:26pm@soybum. What about having a reasonable expectation of privacy? I’m sure alot of people on this site would like a drone to fly up your a** and explode!
Report this comment
Dougsopinion
Mar. 6, 2013 at 4:29pmFor those of you that are intelligent enough to have a bible in your home; Read Isaiah 9:16-17
Report this comment
johnnydangerously
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:47pmAs a drone pilot you don’t have as much of a vested interest in avoiding a midair collision as you do actually flying an aircraft. As a former military pilot, nothing concerned you more than finding out you were flying a corridor that was also used by drones or tomahawk missles.
Report this comment
ThorLoser
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:45pmThe drone itself is not the issue in either theater. The problem is the “authority” to “constitutionally” deprive a citizen of the right to life through the sole and independent action of the executive branch.
The drone is just the means of carrying out the execution. It would be just as objectionable if it were carried out via the use of nanobots, poisons, bullets, tanks and so on.
Report this comment
Exrepublisheep
Mar. 5, 2013 at 11:19pmTrue.
Report this comment
RajCaj
Mar. 6, 2013 at 10:01amYou bring up a good point. I contend that the use of a drone isn’t all that much different than if an order was given by the President to send a F-16 up to address an “emergency” hypothetical, similar to Pearl Harbor or 9/11. (as the letter from Holder states)
Which brings me to my second point….I get the slippery slope argument, and I most certainly don’t trust Obama or Holder any farther than I could throw them (or any politician for that matter). But there has been a lot of creative liberty taken by many posters & Glenn himself, on what would constitute an “emergency” situation where a unilateral drone strike on a US citizen would be deployed.
Again, no fan of Holder here, but in his letter he states that Fed / State law officials would be deployed to address terrorist threats (as they have been several times over the last 8+ years) The scenario he presents, as a potential situation where a unilaterally authorized drone strike by the president would occur, would be something on par with a Pearl Harbor / 911 event…..not to combat a TEA party gathering, or to follow up on a list of far right extremist groups defined by SPLC.
That said, I am conflicted on how to address such a hypothetical. I’m not any more comfortable with some unelected judge making the decision to approve a strike vs. just the President….but I also don’t think it’s practical to not act in an emergency situation because the person is a US citizen and has the right to a speedy t
Report this comment
Vickie Dhaene
Mar. 6, 2013 at 10:10amExactly.
Report this comment
Ar-shooter
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:44pmIt has been said that the 2nd amendment doesn’t allow for rocket launchers or tanks…..well, it seems now that I would beg to differ….drones over houses in america = rocket launchers in american citizens hands !
Report this comment
SgtB
Mar. 5, 2013 at 10:54pmAs far as I am concerned, the 2nd amendment says ARMS, not firearms of a certain type and caliber. Any and every available weapon and munition is legal for the Citizens of this nation to own and use in a defensive posture to protect their God / Nature given rights and the nation of Citizens. Remember, the colonists fought a war after they had their CANNONS taken away. They had access to the same armaments that the military had at that time. And not just the infantry’s weapons. They had access to all of it. In today’s terms, that would be like a millionaire having a private armory consisting of several APC’s and AA guns along with all the supplies to arm a militia of fellow Citizens.
BTW, Ted N., I’d be willing, able, and ready to serve in such a militia with you.
Report this comment
ChildOfTheKing
Mar. 6, 2013 at 12:04pmI read on a few underground blogs that they are gearing up to take out ANY drones they know are flying overhead for ANY reason. THEY WILL BE READY. CIVIL WAR IS COMING………
Report this comment
Jelly_Belly
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:42pmJust to be clear, I would fully support the use of drones and drone strikes on American soil during an invasion by enemy forces. (Possibly also against drug cartels or something.) These questions, I hope, are assuming we are not being invaded.
Report this comment
SgtB
Mar. 5, 2013 at 10:58pmThe caveat against drug cartels wouldn’t come up at all if we stopped this insane war on drugs that created the black market which currently drives the economic viability of such cartels through the roof and by extension the crime levels in our own nation and the nations which supply that demand. Just think, were their big drug cartels chopping people’s heads off a hundred years ago when you could walk down to the corner drug store and get a bottle of any “medication” that you wanted for a small fee?
Surely there is a far better way to deal with addiction and misuse of drugs than to criminalize it. Personally, I’m astounded that we don’t see more mass shootings and the like with the current state of affairs.
Report this comment
ChildOfTheKing
Mar. 6, 2013 at 12:07pmI am sorry, but I THINK IF AMERICANS WERE ALLOWED TO OWN and purchase anything the military has, we would never have tyrants or invaders.
Report this comment
nectoxicdragon
Mar. 9, 2013 at 3:00amthere are a few key words that need to be addressed when discussing drones. First is the designation of the drone, military or law enforcement, the former offers more latitude than the latter. Military Drones come in two varieties, surveillance and “strike or assault or attack” take your pick these three terms seem to be used interchangeably. Law enforcement needs to be LIMITED to surveillance only. Under current law, Law enforcement is not allowed armed aircraft PERIOD. That means federal, state, county or local. Surveillance requires WARRANTS. damn the misuse of the patriot act. If they lie and use one (claiming suspected terrorist activities) and we try to take it down, we justify it’s use. Tricky of them isn’t it. but back to the military use… Obama can ONLY order actions against a threat. He can not order which actions, with the single exception of nuclear weapons. All other actions are chosen by the Joint chiefs of staff, and OKed by the Commander in Chief, this is how it works. Obama can not “order” the use of specific weapons in any other way. If the joint chiefs say no, he can not call it up. it is still up to the DOD to act, not him. The bottom line is the drone is a tool and needs to be used as a tool. Law enforcement can not, by FAA regulations use them above the altitude of 400ft (maximum ceiling for unmanned radio controlled aircraft), and the military is the ONLY one who can use them as a weapon, making them a weapon of war, and their use an act of w
Report this comment
demsrtraitors
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:36pmIf drones can be used now then tanks and death squads will be used in the future against citizen. And one more thing. Where are all the old fat white women from code pink at?
Report this comment
OlefromMN
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:48pm“Where are all the old fat white women from code pink at?”
In their collective homes drumming up ways to label each and every Tea Party advocate a terrorist so that Janet Nappy Hair Apollo can give the go ahead to Barack and his band of computer geeks now controlling our drones.
Report this comment
chips1
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:52pmProbably making more Pink Slime for school lunches.
Report this comment
Fubared
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:58pmChips, not a good visual at all you bastid. Damn that was funny though-
Report this comment
Smokey_Bojangles
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:25pmEric ad Big Sis are going to do whatever they want to do. The only things we can do is quietly accept it,or shoot the damn things out of the sky. I would like to think my Sheriff would turn a blind eye.
Report this comment
Patriot Z
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:22pmif an american citizen is caught overseas in a terroist trainning camp, or like al alaki dude, then kill him…just kill him. face it that guy was our enemy, not som evictim of a govt conspiracy but no drones on American soil esp without due proccess
Report this comment
DRSAVAGE24
Mar. 5, 2013 at 10:13pmUm, careful about that…several people at high levels of the government have labeled the tea party, ron paul supporters, and returning military vets as potential terrorists. They’ve out and out labeled tea partiers as terrorists. It’s not much of a stretch to take it further. Maybe when the drones are hunting you you may wish you had the security of due process. What is so damn hard about producing evidence and charging the alleged terrorist with a crime? Anwar al-Awlaki, bad dude right? Well, he wasn’t charged or anything, yet he and his 16-year old American son were assassinated in separate drone strikes.
Report this comment
zapparules
Mar. 5, 2013 at 10:32pmSo as I have already asked….
Is it to be the position of the Right that… On American soil – even if the threat is imminent – and the best, most immediate response at securing the safety of (other) Americans is a drone strike…
The Right will not support that (because Obama and his Admin has said they would) – ???
Report this comment
Stoic one
Mar. 5, 2013 at 11:03pmZAPPARULES
When I did this poll I took it to be the GOVERNMENT
NOT bathhouse barry. Romney & MCcain would be just as wrong.
Report this comment
ThorLoser
Mar. 6, 2013 at 1:26amIf one is to use drones, then one would have to know of an imminent threat beforehand. What, exactly, is an imminent threat? Has a crime already been committed? Is one in progress? Has a conspiracy or plot been uncovered? What intelligence and or evidence supports that claim? Whose judgement is used to determine that the threat is imminent? If it is truly imminent, then call a judge and explain that threat. Nobody is saying, “Don’t address actionable intelligence”. What we are saying is, “Do not unilaterally act as judge, jury and executioner in direct vioaltion of the constitution”. We do not have thought police. Unilateral actions such as this on the part of the executive branch, against citizens, leaves the specific definition of words such as “imminent” and “threat” and their application up to members of that branch alone. When our soldiers, engaged in warfare on the open battlefield have rules of engagement against enemy combattants which include what types of rounds may be used against a given threat, then our own government, on our own soil, in peace time should have an even more strict set of rules of engagement. The govornment is holding to Geneva conventions more strongly than the Constitution… and *we* vote for them! In very real terms, this gives known enemy combattants greater representation than citizens.
Report this comment
Jedrin
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:15pmWhat about the air space above your house, can the property owner keep out drones or any other spy vehicle? Or what about the air space above me at all times? I can see that ground spy drones will be allowed on private property without a warrant, the courts have already said the police can trespass and put up cameras without a warrant.
Report this comment
OlefromMN
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:25pmMy understanding is that the US government controls all airspace within the USA. That alone sounds like an issue that is in violation of the 4th Amendment. But it has been an unchallenged issue to date. Perhaps a very wise Constitutional Litigator could challenge the notion in court?
Report this comment
EQUALIZER
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:15pmIts not just drone attacks. It is fully open legal assassinations on anyone in the U.S. with cause as they see fit without trial or warrants.Just ask Andrew Breitbart and hsi autopsy doctor Cormier, they are no longer with us as a result.
Report this comment
grickm
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:08pmI agree the poll is vague. I said “no” to local police using drones, but would say “yes” to active events such as hostage situations, high speed chases, rescue operations, etc. What’s the difference between a cop in a helicopter versus sitting at a desk watching video from a drone he controls?
Report this comment
banjarmon
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:07pmWould you want some pervert flying a drone over your back yard while you and your wife/girlfriend were skinny dipping in the backyard pool??
Report this comment
SamIamTwo
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:05pmDrone the Seattle Anarchists.
http://centraldistrictnews.com/2013/03/fire-that-burned-townhouses-at-24th-and-norman-was-arson-some-anarchists-claim-credit/
No problemo doing that…JIMHO
Report this comment
SamIamTwo
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:01pmApparently, it a jobs opp.
And when was the last time the DOJ would go up against the president, eh?
Droning, depends on what your is, is…no doubt.
Report this comment
starman70
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:11pmYou can even win a medal for piloting a drone. ONLY ODUMMER COULD THING THAT ONE UP.
Report this comment
dosdelgados
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:52pmYep and it outranks the Bronze Star. Sickening.
Report this comment
RaydocX
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:01pmour city lost its helicopter support, so i can see that a drone might provide a cheaper possibly safer alternative. but that is situation dependent, not just a roving ‘sentinel’
and with Holder insisting that drone strikes on US soil are legal, i would have to say i am opposed to them without SIGNIFICANT protections… no recording when not in a specific pursuit, operations console open to civilian oversight at any time, UNARMED drones…
operationally, in any theater where our troops face combat and receive combat pay I support ARMED drones up 24/7 collecting intel and providing ready air support.
Outside of the ‘hot zones’ I support intel gathering. i understand high value target harvesting. but i am skeptical given the number of ‘innocents,’ which sometimes aren’t innocent, but are called such without any ability of the US to argue lacking boots/ eyes on the ground. And it limits our ability to collect intel through the waterboarding we aren’t doing and other means of persuasion.
Report this comment
woodyee
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:09pm“without SIGNIFICANT protections…”
Do you remember the American Communist Lawyers Union? Yeah…I haven’t heard much from them since Nov. 2008 myself…
Report this comment
Fubared
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:55pmI ran out of clay pigeons, so I can see a use for all my extra hi-brass #4. And, well since we now have a season on crows, these metallic wings could provide for a nice outlet.
Report this comment
crusaderx9
Mar. 5, 2013 at 8:58pmThe Blaze must have a third grader writing these poll questions…
Report this comment
DougHuffman
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:13pmWhy, which one is yours, the fourth grader’s?
Report this comment
TH777
Mar. 5, 2013 at 10:05pm@Crusaderx9: And you must be the 3rd grader they were trying to lure in. Well Bingo, The Blaze Won!
Report this comment
crusaderx9
Mar. 5, 2013 at 10:15pmThe poll questions are not intellectually driven. They are intended to distort the topic with disjointed data points in order to allow those who interpret and publish the results to manipulate and misinform others.
But DOUGHUFFMAN and TH777, you are a simple a$$wipes that are incapable of understanding such matters…
Report this comment
TH777
Mar. 5, 2013 at 10:56pm@Crusaderx9: YOU are the one incapable of understanding. You will learn the truth, but in the end it will be too late.
Report this comment
crusaderx9
Mar. 6, 2013 at 8:08amTH777,
You will be a victim of the liberal left as you uselessly chase these polls which have no significance.
Report this comment
Tigress1
Mar. 5, 2013 at 8:54pmThis poll is too vague. I don’t care what they do in Muslim countries that we are at war with. They can send in Terminators for all I care if it keeps OUR soldiers alive. However, they better be da*n sure that none of them ever get into the hands of our enemies (like our drone in Iran). However, we don’t need drones here in America. The only exception I would make to this would be using them for search and rescue (like in mountains where it’s too difficult to search, etc.).
Now if there is some threat out there that our gov. knows about (which is why they have been buying all the ammo, tanks, drones, etc). then it’s time they “fess up”. We have a right to know what’s going on. NOW! People are practically in panic mode. They just better tell us the TRUTH, because we will KNOW if they are lying to us.
Report this comment
OldSurfRat
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:03pmNice (:
Report this comment
RaydocX
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:05pmWell Stated.
Report this comment
zapparules
Mar. 5, 2013 at 10:49pmSo the ONLY exception YOU would make is for search and rescue?
So say there is an imminent threat to fellow Americans here on American soil (by other ‘not nice’ Americans) – and the best and most immediate response is a drone strike…
You make no exception for that – eh?
That, to me, makes you sound like you are soft on national security.
How electable do you think someone would be if it can be said they are soft on national security?
Dead Americans vs an American soil drone strike…
Care to reconsider your ONLY exception?
Report this comment
Tigress1
Mar. 5, 2013 at 10:56pmZapparules, “care to rethink your only exception?” NO I don’t!
If the man is an imminent danger to others then the police, or FBI should capture the man. Just like we have ALWAYS done. If he threatens police, THEN they have the authority to shoot to kill. I don’t see any reason why any person could ever be such a threat that the only quick response is with a drone strike. If the person is in such a remote area that the police can’t get to him, then how much of an imminent threat can he really be?
My answer is still “NO”.
Report this comment
United_Ignited
Mar. 5, 2013 at 8:54pmIf Janet Reno had a Drone she would have bombed the Waco Compound instead of just burning it to the ground. (all in the name of gun control).
Report this comment
PeachyinGA
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:07pmU_I, Waco was the first thing I thought about when Paul’s news broke today. No good can come of drones (armed or not) spying on U.S. Citizens (especially with the current regime).
Report this comment
DavidintheD
Mar. 5, 2013 at 8:53pmCould be why there,s a jump in home GAS explosions
Report this comment
FISH_BONE
Mar. 5, 2013 at 8:52pmIf they will target my neighbor’s dog when it strolls over to drop deuce on my lawn, I’m ok with it. Otherwise, we’ve got a problem.
Report this comment
Fubared
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:20pmBlow guns, bb guns, the old exlax in a hot dog trick…all kinds of way to deal with that.
Report this comment
DAYWATCHER
Mar. 5, 2013 at 8:51pmDo you think this was released to cover future acts of domestic drone attacks?
But of course!
Report this comment
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Mar. 5, 2013 at 8:43pmI look at it this way, would I want that power in someone elses hands, who thinks the polar opposite of my thinking? In other words, do I want Obama and Holder to be able target and kill me if THEY deem me a threat? Me thinks NOOOOOOOOOO, NADA, NEVER, NO WAY, and lastly….NEGATIVE.
Report this comment
Fubared
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:08pmNegatory. Not here, keep that platform over there.
Report this comment
civilwarcometh
Mar. 5, 2013 at 8:38pmDo you think this is illegal under the Constitution and a treasonous act to target citizens? With out a doubt it is..
Report this comment
The-Monk
Mar. 5, 2013 at 8:57pmHi Civilwarcometh,
Let me know if you spot any more anomalies in you posting. : )
Report this comment
WarMunger_Al
Mar. 5, 2013 at 9:02pmlincoln did it, so I guess it must be ok. America no longer exists, other than in our memories. The only good news is people are starting to wake up to that fact. Problem is, it may be too late to avoid a catastrophe.
Report this comment
DRSAVAGE24
Mar. 5, 2013 at 10:18pmYeah we should sorta revisit our thinking on Lincoln. Not the great president or person everyone makes him out to be. Calvin Coolidge should have a monument in his honor, not Lincoln.
Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Mar. 5, 2013 at 11:15pmyea whenever glenn starts his lincoln-worship on the radio it makes me sick
Report this comment
inmyhumbleopinion
Mar. 5, 2013 at 8:36pmScared out of my WITS about this development!!!!
Report this comment